Diplomatic Talks Between North and South Korea Collapse Before They Begin

Recently resumed diplomatic talks between North and South Korea have "collapsed," say reports coming from Seoul, in what was the first
meeting between the two countries since tensions flared after the
North's military attacked a South Korean island in November, killing
four people. Many had speculated at the time about the possibility of
all-out war on the Korean Peninsula, and the two countries have been
"technically" at war since 1953 when a civil conflict ended with a truce
and not a treaty, according to Reuters. North Korean officials walked
away from the table after no more than five hours into the second round
of talks, "unilaterally" marking the end of the attempted dialogue,
according to the South Korean Defense Ministry. The two countries
couldn't even agree on an agenda.

North Korea remains an
unpredictable (and nuclear) threat in a region responsible for
one-sixth of the world's economy. It has yet to acknowledge two attacks
on South Korea in the last year--the artillery assault of Yeonpyeong
Island, and the sinking of a S. Korean ship on March 26 of last year
that killed 46 people--and has been notoriously difficult and unwilling
to negotiate. Why did the talks happen in the first place? What was on
the table? What did each side hope to get from the exchange? Where does
this leave things for the future? Some early reactions.

They Didn't Make It Very FarJeremy Laurence and Cho Mee-young
at Reuters note that while "colonels from the two Koreas....talked for two days" they "failed to get past the first hurdle of the preliminary meeting--setting the agenda for senior discussions."

And Here's Why "South Korea wanted North Korea to
acknowledge—and move toward some form of apology for—its attacks on the
South last year, including the Nov. 23 artillery barrage of Yeonpyeong
Island, which killed four people, and the March 26 sinking of a patrol
ship, which killed 46," says Evan Ramstad
at the Wall Street Journal, while "North Korea's representatives at the talks on
Tuesday said that South Korea's insistence on talking about those
matters amounted to a rejection of the importance of discussions."

So In That Case, Why Negotiate At All? The North Koreans were partially brought to the table by China. "China, North Korea's closest ally, is
believed by many outsiders to have pressured it into talking." says Ramstad at the WSJ. "Beijing is
thought to have become angry over Pyongyang's belligerence, most
notably after its attack on a South Korean island in November," he remarks, noting that North Korea's support from China may
depend on its behavior towards the South. Peter Foster at The Telegraph questions South Korea's participation at all, noting that Kim Jong-il's regime has failed to deliver
on any of the promises it's made at negotiations since 2003.

"Both
Seoul and Washington have vowed not to repeat the mistakes of earlier
negotiations in which North Korea was showered with aid in return for
pledges that it would give up its nuclear weapons – pledges it reneged
on time and again....Given that almost no-one believes that North Korea
will give up its trump nuclear negotiating card...why bother talking at all?"

What Remains At Stake Chosunilbo a South Korean daily, wonders about the vulnerability of the South to special ops infiltration from the North, noting the "1.5 million South
Korean soldiers and police" that "had to be mobilized...for a mere 26
North Korean operatives and 26 submarine crewmembers who fled into the
mountains of Gangwon Province" in 1996. How would South Korea's "20,000 elite special troops," stand up to North Korea's "60,000 specialized troops and 140,000 light infantry soldiers"? Justin McCurry at the
Guardian reports that talks between the two countries' Red Cross
agencies to resuming meetings between separated families are still planned, though they
have not set a date. "Hundreds of thousands of people were separated during
the war. More than 20,000 elderly South Koreans have been briefly
reunited with relatives from the North over the past 10 years, but many
among the 80,000 others may die before they are given the chance to meet
relatives they last saw six decades ago," he says.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Eli Rosenberg is a writer in Washington, D.C. whose work has appeared on Esquire.com, Salon, and The Onion's A.V. Club.